US tariffs challenged in court
A federal court in New York heard a challenge to President Trump's 10% global tariffs, with judges questioning whether a routine trade deficit justifies the measure under a 1974 law. The case follows earlier legal setbacks and could influence procurement costs and budget planning for institutions that buy equipment internationally. (opb.org)
President Donald Trump’s 10 percent global tariffs faced a new legal test on April 10 in a federal trade court in New York. (apnews.com) A three-judge panel at the United States Court of International Trade heard challenges from 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses seeking to block the duties, which took effect on February 24. (reuters.com) The tariffs were imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that allows a president to add import duties of up to 15 percent for 150 days without new approval from Congress. Trump set the rate at 10 percent and said he could raise it to 15 percent, but had not done so as of April 11. (opb.org) The fight in court turned on a narrow phrase in that 1974 law: “balance-of-payments deficits.” Judges pressed both sides on whether that phrase covers the modern United States trade deficit or a different kind of currency problem tied to the dollar and foreign exchange markets. (politico.com) That distinction matters because Trump’s first attempt at broad global tariffs had already been struck down by the Supreme Court on February 20. The Court said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 did not authorize tariffs, pushing the administration to switch to Section 122 the same day. (opb.org) Section 122 was written for temporary import surcharges during “large and serious” international payments problems, and the statute caps those measures at 150 days unless Congress extends them. Under Trump’s February 24 order, the current tariffs are scheduled to expire on July 24. (uscode.house.gov, opb.org) Lawyers for the states said Congress wrote the provision in the 1970s to handle short-term monetary stress, not a long-running gap between imports and exports. Oregon lawyer Brian Marshall told the court Trump “cannot repurpose” that authority to address a routine trade deficit. (reuters.com) The administration argued the tariffs are a lawful response to a persistent deficit in goods trade and a valid use of presidential power under Section 122. Trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, who is not in the case, told The Associated Press he would be “stunned” if challengers won because courts may defer to the president on a temporary measure set to expire in a few months. (reuters.com, opb.org) A separate business lawsuit was filed on March 9 by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of Burlap and Barrel and another importer, adding a second track of pressure on the same tariff program. Oregon and 23 other states had filed their multistate case four days earlier, on March 5. (libertyjusticecenter.org, doj.state.or.us) The judges did not say when they would rule after a hearing that lasted more than three hours. For now, the case leaves Trump’s 10 percent tariff in place while the court decides whether a 1974 stopgap law can carry a 2026 trade policy. (opb.org, politico.com)
